Holy Fuck! A habitable planet only 20 LY away?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seriously.THe world should just stop bickerin with each other over useless shit and fund a project to find and get us to new planets.
 

Dave

Staff member
If we could find a better way of propulsion and could get to different planets it's possible that we could in the next few hundred years actually set foot on another planet. Think about that. I won't be around to see it but how cool?
 
THe world should just stop bickerin with each other over useless shit and start bickering over who gets to rule the new planet
Is probably more how it's gonna go down.

Seriously can you imagine the battle over who gets what on a new planet? Yikes.
 

Dave

Staff member
Hey let's maybe get back to the moon first.
I disagree with this. With the moon we run into the facts that:

  1. Been there. Done that.
  2. It's only rocks, anyway.
Disregarding the fact that both of these statements are amazingly short-sighted and wrong, it is the commonly held belief by the people with whom we need to convince - i.e. Congressmen. But they are too busy trying to become wealthier and to kowtow to their constituents (and by that I mean the business interests who have purchased their votes).

But a new planet with the possibility of sustaining life and possibly having abundant minerals or new items to discover? Well, sir, now you are talking!
 
I'm still waiting to find out that Bioware was right about Charon not being a moon. (Because hey, that would be epic).
 
Not to be a party-pooper, but reading the article on the details of the planet, we're looking at:

-twice Earth's gravity
-perpetual murky red twilight on one side of the planet
-nothing but night on the other side, because this planet apparently has one side always facing its sun and the other facing away
-nothing about land mass, just water so far
-mostly CO2 atmosphere, in which we would suffocate

Still, for me it'd be exciting just to find out about animal or plant life on another planet.
 
Not to be a party-pooper, but reading the article on the details of the planet, we're looking at:

-twice Earth's gravity
-perpetual murky red twilight on one side of the planet
-nothing but night on the other side, because this planet apparently has one side always facing its sun and the other facing away
-nothing about land mass, just water so far
-mostly CO2 atmosphere, in which we would suffocate
 
Could it be true? Could we conceivably find another planet to colonize in my kids' or grandkids' lifetimes?

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/gliese-581d-con.php

Hey Congress! Stop being fuckwits and FUND THIS SHIT!
Are you on crack? Do you know how far 20 LY is? The fastest manned flight ever was Apollo 10 @ like 24k mph it would take a half million years to get there. Even at 1000x THAT speed 24 million miles an hour ( which is 3.5% the speed of light) it would take like 550 years. We will NOT be able to travel at even double Apollo 10 within 2-3 generations with out killing people due to acceleration G forces, unless some majorly, majorly, MAJORLY HUGE fundamental physics findings are made in the near future. I'm talking about as major a leap as it was to get from alchemy to quantum physics. We are no where near understanding how the universe (or even gravity) works for that matter, and the universe is a HUGE place.

Just as a reminder: Take an ordinary light bulb and pretend it is a scale model of the Sun. The earth is the size of a dot next to it, and the scaled orbit of the Earth is 30 feet -and that's just 1 AU. The entire solar system would be the size of a football field. It's almost dumbfounding how small we are.

You really need to work in the field of science to fully understand how many questions have top people in their respective fields scratching their heads. It really is grasping in the dark a lot of the time. I'm a very Socratic thinker in regard to science. For all that we know, we don't know shit.

I know that mankind has progressed technologically at an amazing pace, but I'd give inner stellar travel at least another 1000 years. What you're saying is analogous to someone in 2 A.D. saying we'll be able to create flying machines in the next 1o0 years.
Added at: 18:45
I disagree with this. With the moon we run into the facts that:

  1. Been there. Done that.
  2. It's only rocks, anyway.
Disregarding the fact that both of these statements are amazingly short-sighted and wrong, it is the commonly held belief by the people with whom we need to convince - i.e. Congressmen. But they are too busy trying to become wealthier and to kowtow to their constituents (and by that I mean the business interests who have purchased their votes).

But a new planet with the possibility of sustaining life and possibly having abundant minerals or new items to discover? Well, sir, now you are talking!
Any feasible manned inner and extra solar travel (like Mars) will have to involve launching from the moon with current technology. Before we can even think of inter stellar travel, we need to be able to colonize in orbit around our planet, the Moon, Mars, and possibly Jovian moons. I don't think you appreciate just how hard it is for NASA to just launch the Space Shuttle and coordinate unmanned space exploration. Rocket science ain't easy like brain surgery.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
20 light years is ~ 117,569,996,000,000 miles.

That is, roughly one hundred seventeen and a half TRILLION miles.

Can't exactly hop in the prius and drive there on a weekend.

The distance to the moon is about 240,000 miles.

It took Apollo 11 around 4 and a half days to get to the moon. Let's be nice and round it off to four. That would mean it covered about 60k miles a day (my dad's station wagon looks on in envy).

That means, at current propulsion levels (and I don't think we travel a whole lot faster in space these days), it would take about 1,959,499,933 days to get there.

1.9 billion days. Hard to wrap your head around a number so big. Maybe if we switch to years...

5,368,492 years. Five point three six eight MILLION years.

You know what happened even around 3 million years ago?

Homo erectus.

It would take us longer to get there than OUR ENTIRE SPECIES HAS EXISTED TO THIS POINT.

Your grand, or great grand, or great great grandchildren will NOT be colonizing this planet. We stand a better chance of terraforming a planet in our own solar system before we reach this one, unless there's a sudden breakthrough in space folding.
 
Your grand, or great grand, or great great grandchildren will NOT be colonizing this planet. We stand a better chance of terraforming a planet in our own solar system before we reach this one, unless there's a sudden breakthrough in space folding.
But what about when the sun dies! Noooooooo...
 

GasBandit

Staff member
But what about when the sun dies! Noooooooo...
Our current best estimate is that the sun will burn out in about 5 billion years. What a coincidence.

Also, consider that the star Gliese 581 is a red dwarf, not a yellow sun... so... no superman. So there.
 
Does this mean I can stop all this stupid recycling bullshit?
I see what you did there.

Gas, you're off by a factor of 10. It's half a million years; not 5.5 million. But still, it doesn't invalidate your point. 500,000 years ago our ancestors were just about done with flinging poo at each other, and starting to verbally communicate with words.
 

Dave

Staff member
See, I know the math. I also know that currently it would take a couple hundred THOUSAND years to get there. But that's using current technology and not gaining any new. What I'm saying is that this is the perfect carrot to put on the stick for the politicians to refund the space program.
 
A couple hundred thousand at current? Gasbandit's plugging us at 5 million years at current. That's a big difference as to whether it would even be possible in any way.
 
See, I know the math. I also know that currently it would take a couple hundred THOUSAND years to get there. But that's using current technology and not gaining any new. What I'm saying is that this is the perfect carrot to put on the stick for the politicians to refund the space program.
Like I said I don't think the tech is going to advance enough to ever see it happen in our lifetime. Manipulating space-time and gravity is a mighty leap. To be honest right now, it's like a caveman trying to build a computer.
 
The distance to that solar system is 1.18 x 10^14 miles. Traveling at a velocity of ~24,000 mph (24791 mph to be exact) of Apollo 10, the fasted manned velocity to date = 4.76 x10^9 hours or 1.98 x 10^8 Earth days or 543,355.2 Earth years.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
That means, at current propulsion levels (and I don't think we travel a whole lot faster in space these days)
Actually, we can travel faster in space these days, or could if we just threw enough money at the issue. If we really wanted to we could get up to speeds much faster than were used to get the moon, but it would either involve high risk or lots of money/resources (just build a bigger ship that carries more fuel and accelerate longer). There are also various propulsion systems that are in development that promise to provide much more efficient propulsion as well, without the great risk (nuclear pulse propulsion) or cost (conventional chemical propulsion). If ion propulsion pans out it will be roughly 10 times the efficiency of chemical propellants.

If we did build a ship to go to another star, it would be going faster than when we went to the moon.
 
Just think, in about 200,000 years that's what people will think of us!
Added at: 20:57
Actually, we can travel faster in space these days, or could if we just threw enough money at the issue. If we really wanted to we could get up to speeds much faster than were used to get the moon, but it would either involve high risk or lots of money/resources (just build a bigger ship that carries more fuel and accelerate longer). There are also various propulsion systems that are in development that promise to provide much more efficient propulsion as well, without the great risk (nuclear pulse propulsion) or cost (conventional chemical propulsion). If ion propulsion pans out it will be roughly 10 times the efficiency of chemical propellants.

If we did build a ship to go to another star, it would be going faster than when we went to the moon.
Yeah except it'll take a whole shitload of fuel and a shit load of time to accelerate at levels low enough not to kill a person. Realistically you can't have a person even doing 2 g's for like 10 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top